Is the corporate media reporting Jill Stein’s true polling numbers? It’s obvious that the corporate media does not want her in the debates. It would radically change the dynamic of the race.

Stein has just 3% in the polls and needed 15% to qualify for the debates. If Jill got in the debates, her visibility would skyrocket, her poll shares would increase and Hillary Clinton’s shares would decline..

How many Independent and Democratic voters even know Jill Stein?

According to the polls, 12% of respondents are Independents.But the Gallup Party Affiliation Survey indicates the electorate consists of 42% Independents, 29% Democrats and 29% Republicans.

To believe the Media polls, you must believe that Jill Stein has just 5% of Independents and Democrats. But Bernie had 65-70% of Independents in the primaries- and Jill Stein should be doing nearly as well against Clinton in the polls.

The latest polls show Trump tied with Clinton and surpassing her in battleground states. The Election Model indicates that he may be leading by 6%. Johnson is taking votes from Trump. If Stein’s share increased by 10%, Clinton’s would decline accordingly – and Trump would be on his way to a landslide.

What live poll? Where do I mention a live poll in the post? I don’t. I am doing a hypothetical scenario analysis.
You are referring to a previous comment.

Do you believe that the polls are rigged for Hillary, and that Jill Stein has more than 3%?
Do you agree that the polls are undersampling Independents?
And that some did not even interview the 18-34 age group?

The polls are fixed.The media does not want Jill in the debates.
Let’s agree on that.

I apologize if any readers mistook my comment on the fake “poll” as anything but a cautionary tale on fake news sites. I support your analysis of the bogus nature of the polls used to exclude non-duopoly candidates from the national debates. I would add the observation that, in addition to your analysis, there is a structural bias built into the poll question: “If the vote was held today…” Framing the question in this way reinforces the fear factor; that is, with no opportunity for the electorate to learn anything about “fringe” (non-duopoly) candidates, the respondents must assume that these candidates had no chance of winning, and that a vote for them would be wasted. If, instead, the poll question was, “Which candidate’s views most closely match your own?” the results would be different. If we are really voting for “our representatives,” why would we NOT want them to represent our views, interests and aspirations? Electoral reform (including ranked-choice voting and voter-verifiable
paper ballots) would end the fear of “wasting your vote” or being a “spoiler” for the “lesser-evil candidate. Since reform won’t happen before the election, is there anything else which could kill the “fear factor?” Perhaps this web service will suffice: burnmyvote.org. They match you (a non-duopoly voter) with another, in a mutual pledge. Go there to see how it works. Real hope and real change? View and decide.